Comments on: Late Late Nite FDL: Hillary’s Health Care Sham

By: Alecia

Alecia — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:53:52 +0000

It is sad that none of the presidential candidates really sound and seems quite sincere about doing anything meaningful for the American people. I get the impression that they are running but that their heart is not into it…all the races lack passion and deep conviction in the candidates which sort of comes down to only for self-satisfaction sort of thing.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:38:06 +0000

Margot @ 183

Sparhawk,
I like the term Medical Security. It may be something people would not instantly be turned off by, anyway.

I can hear the ad copy now…

Homeland Security begins with Health Care Security.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:22:38 +0000

Suzanne @ 119

TJ @ 114

…
We are shit out of luck on preexisting conditions. Now explain to me how Hillary is making health coverage mandatory.

What will be mandatory is the price they set that you have to pay - or go to jail.

“Free” enterprise?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:16:05 +0000

TeddySanFran @ 94

John Edwards on health care, today.

He will take away the President’s, Congress’, and all political appointees’ health care on July 20, 2009 if they haven’t enacted Universal Health Care by then.

He also sez the lesson Hillary learned from 1993 is: “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”

There are 2 crucial issues:
a) everybody gets coverage(?) and
b)everybody can afford(?)

Requiring everyone to buy insurance would cover a) if everyone could afford it. But, given that most can’t afford it (and that’s why they don’t have it) then by adding penalties to their health bill means you’re charging HIGHER prices to the poor and making it even more impossible for them to visit a doctor. That’s insane. And, that means b) can’t be achieved.

Using the existing health care insurance system and expanding on it with more and more government supplied programs ensures universal coverage (sooner or later) and if the government program is done well it will compete (to some extent) with private insurance programs and that might hold down costs.

The proof is in the pudding, but you can tell up front which programs are intended to deal with the 2 crucial issues.

Edwards for President — Leadership based on an Ideal, but which is also Realistic

By: Helen

Helen — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:28:05 +0000

Yes. They are very similar. If you hate Hilary’s plan, then you hate Obama’s and Edwards. They all require employers to offer insurance or pay into a pool for the uninsured. They all extend health insurance through the Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid. They all offer people the option of choosing among private plans, like federal employees under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. They all offer some sort of subsidies for the poor. And, and I do not understand why this is getting so little press, the have the option of enrolling in a “public plan like Medicare” which is code for a single payer plan. All of these plans open the door to a voluntary transition to single payer. They let a single payer plan compete with the existing system and it doesn not take a genius to figure out that it will grow and grow fast. Under the single payer plan, the costs are less, the benefits are greater, and people can go to any doctor or hospital for covered services without the approval of a health plan. No managed care. No health plans. In fact, Hilary’s plan does the best job of this by allowing ANY American the option of the single payer plan. Edward and Obama both restrict enrollment in the “public plan” to those with out employer coverage and those who are not eligible for other public programs (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP). So don’t be too hasty in your criticism until you understand what is being proposed. It is very creative and probably the best hope we have for moving to single payer.

By: Helen

Helen — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:22:44 +0000

neurophius @ 11

Anybody know how Obama’s and Edwards’s plans differ, and are they better? If so, how?

By: alank

alank — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:52:17 +0000

Here’s a more complete statement of Kucinich’s response to the proposals put forth by Edwards, Obama, and Clinton: Kucinich Assesses Opponents’ Health Care Reform Plans: Says Clinton, Obama, Edwards are “on the same page—the wrong page.”

By: Dr. Fred

Dr. Fred — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:19:32 +0000

larry birnbaum @ 440

The best is the enemy of the good.

Clinton’s plan doesn’t even rise to “good” and is the opposite of “progress”, so your point here is irrelevant.

By: alank

alank — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:18:53 +0000

I’ll let (oh) Dennis have the last word here:

LAS VEGAS, 18 (UPI) — Democratic presidential contender Dennis Kucinich said in a Las Vegas appearance he is not impressed with the health plan put forward by Hillary Clinton.

Rep. Kucinich, D-Ohio, said at his new Las Vegas campaign headquarters that the New York senator’s health care plan is not different enough from the current system, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Tuesday.

“Same old same old,” Kucinich said, in reference to the Clinton plan. “Look, with all due respect to Senator Clinton, she’s talking about continuing the present system.”

Kucinich said Clinton’s plan involves combining public and private resources to help purchase insurance coverage from for-profit businesses.

“Who wins with that? The insurance companies,” Kucinich said. “I don’t know if it has any connection to the fact that she (Clinton) is the No. 2 recipient in the entire Congress of money from health insurance companies. But I imagine if they didn’t like it, they wouldn’t give her money.”

Kucinich said his own plan would do away with health insurance entirely, with the federal government footing the bill for any medical care needed by the people.

“No more premiums, no more co-pays, no more deductibles,” he promised, to cheers. “Health care is a right in America. It is our basic right.”

By: larry birnbaum

larry birnbaum — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:24:43 +0000

[Mod Note: Content edited by mod. Please no personal attacks or insults. Thank you.]
Hillary Clinton has spent a large part of her life working on behalf of children, and her largest single foray into public policy was a failed effort to get universal health insurance in this country that she clearly found incredibly painful. All of this, according to you, is a sham. The fact that she might have some actual experience and understanding of what it will actually take to make this happen in the US, instead of blabbering ineffectually about it, makes no difference to you.

The best is the enemy of the good. And you, despite liberal pretensions, are the enemy of progress.